Estimating the age of the Universe, and getting it all wrong

[The_Doc_Man]

[Note, I don't actually know if it is the electrons that have a distribution curve of their location or if it is the other particles. I just think its probably the electrons, from memory.]

All particles have a distribution curve. Some distributions are just flatter (broader) than others. See also "kurtosis."

 

[Arthur95ART]

Em minha experiênciaNão há muitos cassinos on-line de grande porte. Se você olhar para o Ice cassino, verá que ele pode ajudá-lo a terminar um trabalho que você odeia, disse ele.De acordo com as estatísticas, este cassino on-line tem o RTP mais alto

 

[Isaac]

I went to a casino a few times and was surprised how much I hated it. Endless losing, it gets tired.

 

[ebs17]

Given the current state of cosmological physics, the universe's estimated age is 13.8 billion years based the red-shift numbers that tell us how fast everything is moving away from us. The assumptions in deriving that number are the basis for some of the "Big Bang" controversy. However, the fact remains that if you have things moving away from you and you use math to "reverse time" via simulation, you get the "big crunch" at the indicated time.

There are now also theories that the Big Bang of our universe is based on the fact that there was previously an extreme compression into a black hole, where space and mass were unimaginably compressed.

Thus, the expansion of our universe is only a period of time and process within a much larger event, and our universe is only a part of a much larger universe.

Processes of coming and going, arising and dying, large cycles - all of this is much more plausible than a sudden new emergence from nothing.

 

[Isaac]

There are now also theories that the Big Bang of our universe is based on the fact that there was previously an extreme compression into a black hole, where space and mass were unimaginably compressed.

Thus, the expansion of our universe is only a period of time and process within a much larger event, and our universe is only a part of a much larger universe.

Processes of coming and going, arising and dying, large cycles - all of this is much more plausible than a sudden new emergence from nothing.

Yep. Cycles.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Given recent JWST articles that discuss objects apparently older than 13.8 bn years, I think the physics textbooks will be soon be undergoing yet another revision. But this time the questions will be of the mind-blowing variety.

For instance, there are now articles that talk about an observational limit, how far the JWST will ever be able to see, because the farthest parts of the universe we CAN see suggest that REALLY distant space is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light and that there will come a moment when the light that we SHOULD see from some distant star can never reach us because the space it is in is moving away too fast.